Next for Dunne

sligobhoy67

Johnduddy wrote: »

I stand corrected re the count, I always thought that in the case of Cordoba that the ref intervened before he started to count - thats why I thought it was a TKO

Can you clear this up for me then :

Is the 3rd knockdown deemed a KO regardless of the condition of the fighter ? What if the fighter is in a position to continue even after being floored 3 times in a round ? AND is this a KO or TKO....?

I didnt think the WBA still had the 3 KD Rule!

walshb

Johnduddy wrote: »

I stand corrected re the count, I always thought that in the case of Cordoba that the ref intervened before he started to count - thats why I thought it was a TKO

Can you clear this up for me then :

Is the 3rd knockdown deemed a KO regardless of the condition of the fighter ? What if the fighter is in a position to continue even after being floored 3 times in a round ? AND is this a KO or TKO....?

The three KD rule where the fighter rises each time is usually deemed a TKO, and rightly so.

If the fighter doesn't rise on the third knock down, then it should be a KO.
Cordoba didn't rise from knock down 3 and I do understand your point that
the ref was calling if off just before he was felled. That's okay, then!

To me, it is not all that hard to apply. A fighter doesn't beat the count, it's a KO.
He beats the count and the ref calls it off, it's a TKO. He is stopped from
a continuous assault, it's a TKO. He can't come out of his corner, it's a TKO.

A KO is only when the fighter cannot beat the count and when the ref decides not to
count a fallen fighter and waves it off to call for assistance.

BTW, the WBA do enforce the 3 kd rule and they say it's an automatic
knockout. So, even if you rise after the third KD, you lose by KO!

http://wbanews.com/artman/uploads/1/WBARulesADOPTEDPUNTACANA2008.pdf

Johnduddy

sligobhoy67 wrote: »

I didnt think the WBA still had the 3 KD Rule!

Ha...the confusion rumbles on...

T-K-O

Even the almighty TKO thought that was in fact a KO

alanceltic

so its fair to say my eagle eye was right in thinking that boxrec have it wrong!!!! I wonder if their stats rank a KO higher than a TKO, mabey worth following up with boxrec to reclassify the result, a KO is much more impressive on a record than a TKO so I imagine it should carry a higher weighting

walshb

alan, the issue is just always ambiguous and there are so many cases
on boxrec where this is apparent. I think and you do and many others, that
it was a KO, but a good point was made by John; he said that the ref seemed
to call if off before Cordoba was felled for the third time. I do recall this.
This changes the whole situation.

BTW, the IBO ratings have yet to change their ratings of late.
Dunne is 23rd and Cordoba is 7th or 8th.

walshb

An example of the ambiguity in relation to boxrec and KOs and TKOs is
with Tommy Morrisson's two losses to Mercer and Bentt.

Mercer obliterated Tommy and it's a TKO and Bentt had Tommy on the floor
three times and it's a TKO, both wins were WBO wins, but the WBA
rule that three knock downs is a KO win! I wonder if the WBO say this also?

The current WBO rule doesn't have a three knockdown rule.
I seem to remember it did have this rule for the Morrisson loss???

Larry Merchant and Lampley did say the 3 rule was in effect!

Big Ears

walshb wrote: »

An example of the ambiguity in relation to boxrec and KOs and TKOs is
with Tommy Morrisson's two losses to Mercer and Bentt.

Mercer obliterated Tommy and it's a TKO and Bentt had Tommy on the floor
three times and it's a TKO, both wins were WBO wins, but the WBA
rule that three knock downs is a KO win! I wonder if the WBO say this also?

The current WBO rule doesn't have a three knockdown rule.
I seem to remember it did have this rule for the Morrisson loss???

Larry Merchant and Lampley did say the 3 rule was in effect!

WBO did indeed have a 3 knockdown rule in place at the time, you'll also see it in the Benn v Barkley fight, and winning by this method is ruled a tko.

Unlike what your interpretation stated previously Walsh, if a fighter is knocked down and the referee waves it off without a count(regardless of whether the fighter gets up or not) it is declared a 'technical count out' which goes on the record as a tko.

The only time you'll see a ko given on the record is if the ref reaches the count of 10 before a fighter gets up.

No idea when the WBA brought in the 3 knockdown rule but it must have been recently enough because I can't ever remember it ending a WBA bought before. if it was in place for Marquez v Pacquiao I, Marquez would of lost by first round tko. However as that bout had more than one title on the line it wouldn't have been in force anyway as they would have used the unified rules.

Personally I'm against it, as a referee, corner or doctor can stop a fight when it needs to be stopped anyway. Technically only the ref can be in reality all 3 can pretty much stop the bout.

The result on boxrec is what the local commission gives them anyway and not what the sanctioning organisation say. So the BUI would be responsible for the result. A result which is correct btw.

walshb

"WBO did indeed have a 3 knockdown rule in place at the time, you'll also see it in the Benn v Barkley fight, and winning by this method is ruled a tko."

I thought so Big, but are you sure the WBO called a three knockdown win a TKO
win? The WBA officially call their three knock down rule a KO win.

As it stands now, the WBO have NO three KD rule; but when they did, did that
get called a TKO or did boxrec just install it as they pleased?

To know this, one would have to show a copy of the old WBO rules!

Boxrec should give the result as per the organistaion rules, not the commission!

Big Ears

walshb wrote: »

"WBO did indeed have a 3 knockdown rule in place at the time, you'll also see it in the Benn v Barkley fight, and winning by this method is ruled a tko."

I thought so Big, but are you sure the WBO called a three knockdown win a TKO
win? The WBA officially call their three knock down rule a KO win.

As it stands now, the WBO have NO three KD rule; but when they did, did that
get called a TKO or did boxrec just install it as they pleased?

To know this, one would have to show a copy of the old WBO rules!

Boxrec should give the result as per the organistaion rules, not the commission!

The reason boxrec give the result as what the commission says and not the sanctioning body is because that is the actual result of the fight.

If boxrec went by what A sanctioning body say then you would have Humberto Soto v Francisco Lorenzo as a NC instead of a DQ win.
Also when more than one title is at stake there could be different interpretations from the sanctioning bodies, however the commission would obviously have their own independent ruling.

The reason they get results from the commissions if the commission will send them results regularly for whenever they have fights, and it doesn't matter if a title is on the line or not. It would be a bit off to take what the commission say as the result but then when there's a bauble on the line take what they say as the result instead of the commission. The sanctioning bodies don't need anymore power and without the local/regional commission the fights wouldn't even be able to take place anyway no matter if the sanctioning body sanctions it or not.

I think they're right to side with what the commission says.
At least that way results(at least within the region the commission regulates) will be standardised.

joepenguin

Seen Dunne on podgae and rodge earlier. He has said that he will definitely be fighting in vegas this year. while this is not gospel it does make me think that they are serious about the big name fights. i suppose the way he looks at is he has accomplished one of his main dreams by becoming a world champion so now go for all the glory while he can.

Johnduddy

joepenguin wrote: »

Seen Dunne on podgae and rodge earlier. He has said that he will definitely be fighting in vegas this year. while this is not gospel it does make me think that they are serious about the big name fights. i suppose the way he looks at is he has accomplished one of his main dreams by becoming a world champion so now go for all the glory while he can.

Didnt see Podge and Rodge but is this overconfidence or bad management ? We have all had the discussion on whether vegas is the best option for dunne. I know if I was in dunnes position I would be looking to pack out the point (o2) and milk it while I could before considering a big fight in vegas with a big name.

I would love to see Dunne defend in vegas in front of a packed house but there are easier ways to make money and Vegas would mean 1 of 2 things. A fight on the undercard of a major WT or WT eliminator fight (Duddy v Pavlik or Duddy V Chavez maybe ) Or fighting a monster (Vazquez)

Ive said it before - make hay while the sun shines Bernard, Brian, Harry....

joepenguin

I reckon he is looking at the glory insted of the money, going for broke. he is in his prime and might as well make the most of that while he can. He will always make money as a fighter.

Johnduddy

joepenguin wrote: »

I reckon he is looking at the glory insted of the money, going for broke. he is in his prime and might as well make the most of that while he can. He will always make money as a fighter.

Joe you can go for glory after you have made a few pound !! - by going to Vegas to defend would mean a mandatory or a big name - do that after you have a full house defence in Dublin against a voluntary - that makes most sense financially. He wont always make money if he gets sparked in the first by an animal like marquez !!! He'll end up back in castlebar tryin to make a living !

Im not being fickle here either just realistic

mark renton

Johnduddy wrote: »

I would love to see Dunne defend in vegas in front of a packed house but there are easier ways to make money and Vegas would mean 1 of 2 things. A fight on the undercard of a major WT or WT eliminator fight (Duddy v Pavlik or Duddy V Chavez maybe ) Or fighting a monster (Vazquez)

Ive said it before - make hay while the sun shines Bernard, Brian, Harry....

the other way around pal - Duddy fighting on the undercard of Dunne v Vasquez / Caballero

mark renton

Johnduddy wrote: »

Joe you can go for glory after you have made a few pound !! - by going to Vegas to defend would mean a mandatory or a big name - do that after you have a full house defence in Dublin against a voluntary - that makes most sense financially. He wont always make money if he gets sparked in the first by an animal like marquez !!! He'll end up back in castlebar tryin to make a living !

Im not being fickle here either just realistic

Ponce De leon got sparked in the first and is he seems to be hanging on to a living :cool:

autograph

Happy for Dunnes. Delighted he made it back. Just hope he doesn't blow it now. Opponents need to be carefully chosen.

akindoc

Johnduddy wrote: »

Didnt see Podge and Rodge but is this overconfidence or bad management ? We have all had the discussion on whether vegas is the best option for dunne. I know if I was in dunnes position I would be looking to pack out the point (o2) and milk it while I could before considering a big fight in vegas with a big name.

I would love to see Dunne defend in vegas in front of a packed house but there are easier ways to make money and Vegas would mean 1 of 2 things. A fight on the undercard of a major WT or WT eliminator fight (Duddy v Pavlik or Duddy V Chavez maybe ) Or fighting a monster (Vazquez)

Ive said it before - make hay while the sun shines Bernard, Brian, Harry....

ridiculous comments. the guy is talking about fighting THE BEST in his division and you are so scared that he'll get his hiding that you want him to make some money fighting nobodies first. Sorry but real boxing fans dont give a balls about bernard making money, we want to see top fights. attitudes like this is why i despise ricky hatton for his 40-0 conjob. as a fan you should be ashamed of yourself imo.

unknown13

He should take the 200K Frank Maloney is offering him and fight Munroe in Dublin because it makes too much sense and he would be stupid to turn that money down for an opponent he would beat comfortably.

T-K-O

Dunne would make more than 200k against ANYBODY in his next fight at the point.

Munroes team didn't want to know Dunne before he won the title, my mother always says treat others as you would like to be treated.

sligobhoy67

akindoc wrote: »

ridiculous comments. the guy is talking about fighting THE BEST in his division and you are so scared that he'll get his hiding that you want him to make some money fighting nobodies first. Sorry but real boxing fans dont give a balls about bernard making money, we want to see top fights. attitudes like this is why i despise ricky hatton for his 40-0 conjob. as a fan you should be ashamed of yourself imo.

nonsense, the guy deserves wan or two fights against top 20 contenders (better than anything that he has fought prior to Cordoba) and then a fight against a top 5 guy. IMO.

T-K-O

"fans" know how the game works and Dunne deserves to have his voluntary Every single fighter on the planet does exactly the same thing.

Expected Dunne to go after Vazquez straight away is ridiculous, some will say going after him at all is crazy!

akindoc

T-K-O wrote: »

"fans" know how the game works and Dunne deserves to have his voluntary Every single fighter on the planet does exactly the same thing.

Expected Dunne to go after Vazquez straight away is ridiculous, some will say going after him at all is crazy!

The attitude seems to be, "We know bernards not good enough at elite level, so let him make defenses against bums so that we can see him hold onto the belt for a while longer".

I can't say I agree with that and if fans from every country thought that and got what they wanted, boxing would be a poor sport to watch.

joepenguin

Ive come to the conclusion that since Bernard is now in a position to make the big fights happen... Cabellero, Vasquez etc he is going to go for it. Will there ever be a better time? Will the oppurtunity ever come up again? Remember, he is talking about fighting an absolute animal of a fighter in his prime.

sligobhoy67

joepenguin wrote: »

Ive come to the conclusion that since Bernard is now in a position to make the big fights happen... Cabellero, Vasquez etc he is going to go for it. Will there ever be a better time? Will the oppurtunity ever come up again? Remember, he is talking about fighting an absolute animal of a fighter in his prime.

I think he would be mad to do that. But we will see!

mickoo

T-K-O wrote: »

"fans" know how the game works and Dunne deserves to have his voluntary Every single fighter on the planet does exactly the same thing.

Expected Dunne to go after Vazquez straight away is ridiculous, some will say going after him at all is crazy!

Spot on..

joepenguin

sligobhoy67 wrote: »

I think he would be mad to do that. But we will see!

In fairness he'd have to be crazy and very gutsy taking on Vasquez, he's an animal, but Bernard comes across as an oppurtunist. I heard some fighter say this recently "you dont dream of being a world champion and making routine defences, you dream of fighting the best out there in the big fights, big arenas"... or words to that effect, could have been someone on Buncy in the last few weeks.

Dunne seems to have the same attitude. His name can now be mentioned with these guys and we can only assume he is in his prime, maybe a few tweeks here and there but as close to the finished product as you will get. Therefor since he is a world champ in his prime there may never be a better time to negotiate with the big boys.

A chance to become the very best in the world... oppurtunities like that dont come along very often

cowzerp

joepenguin wrote: »

In fairness he'd have to be crazy and very gutsy taking on Vasquez, he's an animal, but Bernard comes across as an oppurtunist. I heard some fighter say this recently "you dont dream of being a world champion and making routine defences, you dream of fighting the best out there in the big fights, big arenas"... or words to that effect, could have been someone on Buncy in the last few weeks.

Dunne seems to have the same attitude. His name can now be mentioned with these guys and we can only assume he is in his prime, maybe a few tweeks here and there but as close to the finished product as you will get. Therefor since he is a world champ in his prime there may never be a better time to negotiate with the big boys.

A chance to become the very best in the world... oppurtunities like that dont come along very often

I agree with all this but i think it makes sense that he has 1 defense to make money and to give the irish fans a chance to see him defend in ireland, then go for broke and try to beat the best.

walshb

joepenguin wrote: »

In fairness he'd have to be crazy and very gutsy taking on Vasquez, he's an animal, but Bernard comes across as an oppurtunist. I heard some fighter say this recently "you dont dream of being a world champion and making routine defences, you dream of fighting the best out there in the big fights, big arenas"... or words to that effect, could have been someone on Buncy in the last few weeks.

Dunne seems to have the same attitude. His name can now be mentioned with these guys and we can only assume he is in his prime, maybe a few tweeks here and there but as close to the finished product as you will get. Therefor since he is a world champ in his prime there may never be a better time to negotiate with the big boys.

A chance to become the very best in the world... oppurtunities like that dont come along very often

What real chance has he against the best in the division?

I mean, Lopez would destroy Dunne, as would Vasquez.
What's the point in taking the fights to get brutally beaten.

Hey, he beat Cordoba, well done, and it was a step up; but a far far
cry from being able to withstand a Vasquez or Lopez.

Unless he really doesn't mind taking a bad beating for the money.
Seriously, does anyone really believe Dunne's camp think
he has ANY chance to be NUMBER 1 in the division?

Ricardo Cordoba is Dunne's limit. The real world champs are a step
too far!

joepenguin

In one word if you had the chance to be the absolute hands down best in the world would you take it? yes or no.

Big Ears

I don't mind Dunne not jumping in with the best straight away but his defenses should be of a very good quality. If he were to fight Rendall Munroe and then Poonsawat Kratingdaenggym although he certainly wouldn't be fighting the very best he couldn't be accused of making routine defences and if he could win those fights it might put him in a better position when he is going in against the best.

Munroe is considered top 10/top 15 and Kratingdaenggym is considered top 10.
Winning those fights would probably get him top 4 with a certain publication and universally considered top 5/6. He'd be more than deserving of a shot at Vasquez. Any fight other than Vasquez/Marquez/Caballero would nearly be a step back after that anyway.


"you dont dream of being a world champion and making routine defences, you dream of fighting the best out there in the big fights, big arenas"

I didn't see hear who said it but I'll guess Froch.
It's true aswell though.

walshb

joepenguin wrote: »

In one word if you had the chance to be the absolute hands down best in the world would you take it? yes or no.

"Chance"

That's the key word. That 'chance' IMO and I am sure in most peoples
opnion is so so so small.

This isn't even close to being a 50-50 scenario.

Bernard I am sure is ambitious, but he is not
stupid and nor are his people. They know
his limits and I doubt they have suddenly begun
to think that the win over Cordoba is an indicator
that Bernard can rule the weight.

So, he as a businessman, like all fighters are, should make the most
of this and make more cash against easier men. I know akindoc
thinks this attitude stinks, and it does, but that is how
the world of boxing has grown. It's all about maximising ones
earnngs and taking as little risk for as much reward!

akindoc

Big Ears wrote: »

I don't mind Dunne not jumping in with the best straight away but his defenses should be of a very good quality. If he were to fight Rendall Munroe and then Poonsawat Kratingdaenggym although he certainly wouldn't be fighting the very best he couldn't be accused of making routine defences and if he could win those fights it might put him in a better position when he is going in against the best.

Munroe is considered top 10/top 15 and Kratingdaenggym is considered top 10.
Winning those fights would probably get him top 4 with a certain publication
and universally considered top 5/6. He'd be more than deserving of a shot at Vasquez. Any fight other than Vasquez/Marquez/Caballero would nearly be a step back after that anyway.


"you dont dream of being a world champion and making routine defences, you dream of fighting the best out there in the big fights, big arenas"

I didn't see hear who said it but I'll guess Froch.
It's true aswell though.

Yeah it was Froch and it wasn't on Bunceys show it was at ringside with Barry McGuigan and Jim Rosenthal on ITV.

As regards Dunne fighting the big boys, I'm not saying he has to go for the likes of Vasquez and Marquez. I'm saying fight someone like Munroe or Molitor. Why fight a nobody. I seem to remember cowzerp criticising ricky hatton for fighting a lot of nobodies in the run up to the tszyu fight but is condoning that bernard do it.

The real reason is we all know dunne has zero chance against the big boys. I'd be surprised to see him last 3 minutes with Lopez, Vasquez, Marquez, Caballero or even Ponce or even in a rematch with Kiko and I'd be putting my money where my mouth is if the fights came off. He'd have decent chances against Molitor and Munroe though (I think he'd probably lose to both though).

People condoning the hattonesque method of fighting bums in your hometown need to take a look at themselves.

walshb

akindoc, I find the condoning of 'bum' fighting to be silly, but worse is when they condone and then hype at the same time. This is the real stupidity.
Making out that the bouts are legit and difficult and worthy.

I have to agree with most who would say a bout with a Munroe or Molitor
or 10-15 challenger would suffice. These are bouts that Dunne should be
looking at, to at least give himself a chance at holding the belt.

Hey, a rematch with Kiko would be great and I'd love Dunne to prevail
in that one, but I would have to favor Kiko, and not just because
of the initial win. Dunne's chin is still very fragile.

Munroe and Molitor will not be guarantees at all. Tough fights with no
definites!

BTW, any you fellas guess when we will know when and who Dunne will
fight next? Big?

joepenguin

cowzerp wrote: »

I agree with all this but i think it makes sense that he has 1 defense to make money and to give the irish fans a chance to see him defend in ireland, then go for broke and try to beat the best.

That would be the ideal scenario alright as long as he came through the first defence looking really good.

Kiko is way down the list imo, first of all he is not rated in the wba top 15 http://wbanews.com/artman/uploads/1/WBA_03-09.pdf second of all he is 3-2 since beating Dunne, Munroe beat him twice and the 3 guys he beat have a combined record of 13wins-51 losses. Dunne-Martinez II will sell at any time but in order for it to happen Dunne has to lose or Martinez needs a win over someone hald decent at least.

Munroe is a great option but Dunnes team would have to call all the shots after all the goings on.

walshb

joepenguin wrote: »

That would be the ideal scenario alright as long as he came through the first defence looking really good.

Kiko is way down the list imo, first of all he is not rated in the wba top 15 http://wbanews.com/artman/uploads/1/WBA_03-09.pdf second of all he is 3-2 since beating Dunne, Munroe beat him twice and the 3 guys he beat have a combined record of 13wins-51 losses. Dunne-Martinez II will sell at any time but in order for it to happen Dunne has to lose or Martinez needs a win over someone hald decent at least.

Munroe is a great option but Dunnes team would have to call all the shots after all the goings on.

joe, you make it sound that a defence vs. Kiko is 'beneath' Dunne?

If Kiko was somehow ranked 50th, a defence would still garner
Dunne huge respect due to the fact that he is willing
to fight a guy who KOd him brutally a few fights previous!

Kiko is a fight that is IMO too dangerous and Dunne won't risk it
unless he really has the heart and bottle to.

Personally, a real true warrior wants to avenge their sole defeat, so maybe
Dunne should have an 'easy' warm up and then seek revenge.

Should Dunne meet and beat Kiko, that will be his finest finest
moment I feel. It shows me true warrior spirit and courage.

It is what separates certain fighters!

sligobhoy67

walshb wrote: »

joe, you make it sound that a defence vs. Kiko is 'beneath' Dunne?

If Kiko was somehow ranked 50th, a defence would still garner
Dunne huge respect due to the fact that he is willing
to fight a guy who KOd him brutally a few fights previous!

Kiko is a fight that is IMO too dangerous and Dunne won't risk it
unless he really has the heart and bottle to.

Personally, a real true warrior wants to avenge their sole defeat, so maybe
Dunne should have an 'easy' warm up and then seek revenge.

Should Dunne meet and beat Kiko, that will be his finest finest
moment I feel. It shows me true warrior spirit and courage.

It is what separates certain fighters!

I agree, I always like to see a fighter avenage his defeats, eg Lenaxe Louis. There is something wholesome about it - its rights a wrong, completes the circle! I cant put my finger on exactly why I like it but I do.

mark renton

Revenge will come - but it will come last, there are bigger fish to fry at the moment

walshb

john47832 wrote: »

Revenge will come - but it will come last, there are bigger fish to fry at the moment

By 'bigger fish,' are you also intimating that those
fish are also more dangerous?

If so, revenge may never come, as Dunne may not get by the 'bigger fish.'

mark renton

walshb wrote: »

By 'bigger fish,' are you also intimating that those
fish are also more dangerous?

If so, revenge may never come, as Dunne may not get by the 'bigger fish.'

Revenge will come - worse case scenario, BD loses next 5 fights, he would still then get a matchup against Kiko as it is unlikely Kiko will win any kind of title, even EBU

IMO the danger levels are on a par - get caught with a big right from Kiko Martinez or get caught with a big shot from Lopez/Vasquez/De Leon or whoever

then the question can be asked which is riskier, losing again to Kiko or one of the big guns? I say take on the big guns, yes they may hit harder and more frequently but a number of them are not unbeatable

joepenguin

walshb wrote: »

joe, you make it sound that a defence vs. Kiko is 'beneath' Dunne?

Technically yes as kiko isnt rated high enough. People here always talk about financial smarts in boxing. To me its a smart move financially to make a defence or two of the title, then go for broke against one of the big guns (this contradicts what I said about wanting to be the best but its from a different perspective, ie making the most amount of money as opposed to being the best)

If at some point Dunne gets beaten then a fight with Kiko will still do big big business. lets say he can earn 300k for a defence of a title, imo he can make this against anybody, Kiko or any wba top 15. should he get beaten by some mexican lad or whatever then he can still make massive bucks in a kiko rematch. if kiko beats him for the title then he has killed both money making birds with the one stone

Dunne-Kiko II is all about timing imo.

cowzerp

akindoc wrote: »

. I seem to remember cowzerp criticising ricky hatton for fighting a lot of nobodies in the run up to the tszyu fight but is condoning that bernard do it.


People condoning the hattonesque method of fighting bums in your hometown need to take a look at themselves.

Your memory is wrong, i joined boards more than a year after the tszyu fight and happen to be a big Hatton fan,

And im not saying Dunne should fight some handbag either, im just stating that he should not fight at a level where he'd be massive underdog on his 1st defense of the title, he's earned that right and it would be better for his carreer and his final earnings when he hangs up his gloves.

Johnduddy

Reading opinions on here has changed my opinion !

**** money and **** holdin on to what you have.

If you're a champion worth your salt you will "avenge" your defeats.

I think that Ireland as a whole and a lot of boxing fans would prefer to see Dunne beat Martinez than a no-name voluntary.

Call me a bitter little man if you like but seeing dunne beating Kiko in a voluntary would mean more to me (and probably Dunne & a lot more people) than him beating some nameless voluntary. Correct me if Im wrong but thats what Im thinkin now.

Whether Dunne has the want/the need to do that I dont know.

If he cant beat somebody that was outboxed by a dustbinman is he really a world champion ?

walshb

John, posts like that questioning Dunne can get you in trouble around here:)

I agree with your post 100 percent. I'd like to see Bernard make a few bob and then fight
a real challenger.

I would love to see a Kiko fight. I am very unsure if Dunne and his team want it.
Whether or not it is deserving is a matter of debate; but I can't see how if Dunne can get a crack at a 'world title' with relative ease, that Kiko cannot be a voluntary for that belt?

The bottom line is that the words World Champion mean a whole lot less today than years gone by.

Real champs want to be the best, beat the best and also make a few bob. No problem with that. Lets give Bernard a while to state his intentions.

mark renton

Johnduddy wrote: »

If he cant beat somebody that was outboxed by a dustbinman is he really a world champion ?

Yes - its well known in boxing that you dont have to be unbeaten to win a world title or be a world champion, that pretty much is a universal rule in sport and I dont think it lessens and value on any world champion of any discipline, and dont worry - revenge will come

walshb

john47832 wrote: »

Yes - its well known in boxing that you dont have to be unbeaten to win a world title or be a world champion, that pretty much is a universal rule in sport and I dont think it lessens and value on any world champion of any discipline, and dont worry - revenge will come

Yeah, the unbeaten part is true, Fed and Nadal and Bolt and Woods have all
been beaten. But, isn't it weird that there are a possible 5 world champs in the main bodies.

How can there be 5 world champs and how can one of them be rated outside the top
5 by the RING and BOXREC and others?

Boxing is different in this respect to many sports.

Hey, Bolt wins a world sprint title this year, he is the world champion, not the first 5!

mark renton

Is Tiger Woods world champion? The best in golf is determined by who wins the most money - not a perfect calculation

Are Italy valid world champions? One competition every 4 years is also not a perfect calculation of who is the best

All world champions are somewhat questionable, in boxing if there was one complete world champion and that champion was dominant for 5 years, and average 3 fights a year (optimistic considering injuries), thats 15 challengers and in some cases same challenger on more than one occasion, and even then the challengers club would be fairly exclusive -then how many boxers would be taking up the sport? IMO not many, as there is no real financial incentive for anyone who doesnt make it very near the top - so a consideration has to be put forward for the status of world champions in boxing to remain the same

Also as proven in other weight divisions on occasion, the unification of the top titles usually earns the authority to call one self the best

cowzerp

Look lads, there is 1 best in the world, he's the man who beat the man etc..real fans know who this is.

there may be 5 world champs, i proper recognise 4 but there more promotional tools TBH and to be the best in the world you should have 1 of these..

its nothing new either, everyone says it was not like that in the old days, it was, the champion of america etc.. who was considered world champ and then there was different world champs recognised by different people, just now its more obvious..there should be a ban on adding to this and possibly a cut of the present 1's, but money will decide this either way.

mark renton

cowzerp wrote: »

Look lads, there is 1 best in the world, he's the man who beat the man etc..real fans know who this is.

that would make B Dunne number 1.

walshb

john47832 wrote: »

Is Tiger Woods world champion? The best in golf is determined by who wins the most money - not a perfect calculation

Are Italy valid world champions? One competition every 4 years is also not a perfect calculation of who is the best

All world champions are somewhat questionable, in boxing if there was one complete world champion and that champion was dominant for 5 years, and average 3 fights a year (optimistic considering injuries), thats 15 challengers and in some cases same challenger on more than one occasion, and even then the challengers club would be fairly exclusive -then how many boxers would be taking up the sport? IMO not many, as there is no real financial incentive for anyone who doesnt make it very near the top - so a consideration has to be put forward for the status of world champions in boxing to remain the same

Also as proven in other weight divisions on occasion, the unification of the top titles usually earns the authority to call one self the best

Golf does not have an official world champion.
It hold 4 majors every year and it has world rankings.
That's how it's done. Now, Tiger on this scale is the worlds
best golfer.

I gave the Bolt example and that is official.

The Fed and Nadal example is like in golf

F1 also has ONE WC, weightlifting also has one WC,
amateur boxing also has one WC. Swimming does too, the lst
goes on!

Boxing differs greatly in this regard and there are fighters at present
who are so called 'world champions.'

At least in a lot of other sports it is discernible and definite.